Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 2 Sep 2003 06:36:38 -0500
From:      Vulpes Velox <kitbsdlist2@HotPOP.com>
To:        Randi Harper <sektie@freebsdgirl.com>
Cc:        freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Ugly Huge BSD Monster
Message-ID:  <20030902063638.59777405.kitbsdlist2@HotPOP.com>
In-Reply-To: <EF8A605A-DD06-11D7-BDAD-000393D46EC6@freebsdgirl.com>
References:  <20030902051334.6de9da27.kitbsdlist2@HotPOP.com> <EF8A605A-DD06-11D7-BDAD-000393D46EC6@freebsdgirl.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 01:33:08 -0400
Randi Harper <sektie@freebsdgirl.com> wrote:
> > Cool, I set my sister up with a FreeBSD box and Windowmaker awhile 
> > back. It has
> > worked out well for her.
> 
> You know, I think if more people would actually look at FreeBSD without 
> thinking "eek, BSD, hard!", they'd realize it's actually a lot easier 
> to run in the long run than linux is. I've been running FreeBSD for at 
> least 3 years, and about a year ago I had to put linux on a laptop to 
> run showeq because there was no port. I chose slackware, because I 
> figured it had the least amount of crap. I had to upgrade a library in 
> slackware, which involved upgrading pretty much the entire system. I 
> didn't want to spend the time on that considering it was just to run 
> one application, so I installed RedHat. showeq required QT 2.x. 
> RedHat's QT 2.x RPM has QT 3.x as a dependancy. This is on a really 
> tiny HD on a PII 300 laptop. :)  After that, I realized how good I had 
> it. Once you get used to the ease of use of the ports tree, there 
> really is no going back. I'm not an anti-linux fanatic at all, but I 
> remember the aggravation of that one experience, and I appreciate what 
> I've got even more.

Yeah, getting ppl past the 'eek, BSD hard' part is a real hurdle. Since my
sister is willing to read documentation, it was not a problem in the least. I
just showed her some basic commands and she was set. As long as the user is
willing to read documentation stuff is cool. I think windows has really proven
the problem of what happens when users don't read documentation and for a nice
part don't feel the need to learn the basics. Computers are a tool regardless
how they are looked at and, like any other tool, they have have a basic set of
info required to use them properly and efficiently. This is something that
really needs address in the public school system. 

> >
> >> A desktop of it's own? Let's clarify something here. Having something
> >> like gnome or KDE doesn't qualify something as being a 'desktop' or
> >> not. Surely you can recall the days before gnome and KDE were popular.
> >> What did we use then? Window Maker? Enlightenment? KDE was somewhat
> >> popular, but it didn't have the momentum it has now. Yes, those are
> >> aimed at the Linux people. And for what it's worth, let them have it.
> >> gnome and KDE are the toilet paper of the stinky gas station bathroom
> >> that is X11, in my opinion.
> >>
> >> GTK, an integral part of gnome, works fine in FreeBSD. Instead of
> >> people just sitting on their butts and whining 'I need a GUI, I need
> >> things to click on, I want something that does stuff for me so I can 
> >> be
> >> a freaking moron but still be able to brag about my uname -a on IRC',
> >> wouldn't it make sense to code one? I realize that's easier said than
> >> done, but it really isn't that difficult to code with GTK/GLib at all,
> >> and in doing so we'd stick with a look and feel that everyone is
> >> familiar with and is well supported and integrated into a variety of
> >> applications.
> >
> > GTK is nice. I am begining to look at it a bit, myself.
> 
> Just wait until you try to code in it. Gooberssh (check the webpage in 
> my .sig) is my first C project that I've even considered showing 
> anyone. It's the first time I've coded in C in years (I'm more of a 
> php/perl monkey), and of course I decide to make a GTK program. Gtk and 
> glib are excellent for coding in, if you don't mind stuff that looks 
> like gtk_window_really_long_function_name(arg, arg, arg, arg, arg). The 
> API reference online isn't bad at all. Also, O'Reilly was supposed to 
> be releasing a new book about Gtk 2.0, but it appears to have been 
> canceled or put off. Bummer. I'm using one of the New Riders books, but 
> it only covers Gtk 1.2. I don't recommend using any of those GUI things 
> like glade though. It just seems to complicate things.
> 
> >
> >> If there's one thing I've noticed by (mostly) idling on this mailing
> >> list, it's that people love to say "we need this", and "it should be
> >> this way", or "someone should code this", but no one ever wants to put
> >> forth the time to help. It's complete BS. Well, here it is, for what
> >> it's worth. I'm willing to put time into this if someone is willing to
> >> help. I'd do it on my own, but I've only been doing GTK coding for a
> >> few months. My C is mediocre at best, and my understanding of the way
> >> X11 handles things is nil. From what I've read, the X11 standard is
> >> complete trash, and I'm not delving into that alone. And if no one
> >> wants to step forward to help, none of you have anywhere to stand in
> >> this discussion.
> >
> > X11 rulz. I personally like how it handles things and the methodology 
> > behind it.
> > The lack of a specific way of creating a GUI is really nice.
> >
> Ugh. Have you SEEN the X11 spec? If you have to write a window manager, 
> I've heard it's a bloody nightmare. Read the Unix Haters Handbook. The 
> PDF is online somewhere. They have a nice section explaining some of 
> it. For me, it's a matter of: I hate it, I know it's ass, but I have as 
> of yet to see a decent alternative that supports my video card, so I 
> don't complain too loudly when I use it.
> 
> 
> 
> Randi Harper
> 
> sektie@freebsdgirl.com
> http://freebsdgirl.com
> 





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030902063638.59777405.kitbsdlist2>